Yes you are correct ace, the Romans and Greeks of antiquity were more open-minded, and advanced in almost every way to the Europeans of the dark ages. That's why I brought them up to make the point I did, because those Europeans of the dark ages, in the early parts of it, helped to destroy Rome. There were many other factors; the Romans turned from a quasi-democratic state into an authoritarian one, and eventually split into rival factions within the power elite; the same divider and killer of the Persian, Indian, Chinese, and other empires throughout human history. The reason the Sassanid Persians lost to the muslims in the 7th century, was due to similar reasons; constant warfare, and a division within the monarchy and led to around 30 rulers in Persia just before it was conquered. I would say the biggest despot of the Middle-Ages is subjective, as the Roman Catholic Church was horrendous I agree, but then the Caliphates were more militant and aggressive than even the Catholics of old. They were however (as you said), more scientifically advanced than the Europeans of the dark ages because they borrowed largely from Greek, Roman, Persian, Egyptian, Indian, Assyrian, and Babylonian knwoledge; which of which the Caliphates would have been no different to the Crusaders. They also helped to preserve much of that literature while the Orthodox Christians of the East Roman Empire, and the Catholic Church were destroying it.
Much of the knowledge that was collected and preserved in that part of the world happened in spite of the Caliphates, as they were run by the similar kinds of religious extremists you will find advocating the destruction of anything non-Islamic. It was only until that knowledge came back into European circles 1000 years after Antiquity that the Renaissance happened, and the world has slowly been coming back to a period of prosperity and peace ever since. The Mongols who came out of Central and Northern Asia during the 11th centuries were actually more aggressive towards Muslims of that time than the Crusaders, in fact at one point there were people being sent to France to create a Franco-Mongol alliance; luckily that deadly combination never happened as the Mongols spoke to everyone they came in contact with in a supremacist tone, that everyone was a potential enemy to be subjugated later on. One of Genghis Khans grandsons, Hulegu Khan; destroyed the Muslim military and technological centre of power in Baghdad in 1258, also killing the Abbasid Caliphate in the same war, and up to 1 million people in one battle. All of this was in response to Muslims invading and subjugating the Turks and other Central-Asian ethnic groups who were originally Shamanist, and Hulegu went on to quickly capturing a quickly surrendered Damasacus (another point of power in the Muslim world), only to be later defeated in by the Mameluks. Some of Genghis Khans later down-the-line descendants would form the Golden Horde and Timurid dynasties, the former of which made Russia a vassal, and the latter formed the Mughal dynasties in India that were probably the bloodiest and violent part of Indias history; perhaps worse than even the British Raj.
By this stage the Renaissance was occuring, followed by the Age of Enlightenment where the first democratic state was created (The US in 1776, and it was born out of fighting colonialism at the hands of a rising British colonial super power), and after this point; the US has gradually become the worlds largest military, diplomatic, economic, and democratic super power; creating a more peaceful and prosperous world than what came before it, for the most part encouraging the spread of democracy, the ending of European colonialism worldwide, and helping to bring an end to fascism, communism, and theocratic states in the last century. All of this has been done in spite of the old European cultural mentalities, and with plenty of mistakes made a long the way. The west of today is far removed from what it used to be during the Middle-Ages, and will continue moving away from it as time goes by. Democracy is the only form of government that has shown a country can still rise to become an influencial and great country on the world stage, while still allowing its people to live freely without the fear of being killed by the state for speaking out against a leader, or for choosing their own direction in life when during the Middle-Ages; you could only carry on the tradition of your parents, and changing that to become a wealthy member of society was almost impossible. If we could turn the tides within our own cultures, every other group of people in the world can and embrace freedom. For some it will be easier than others, that I will agree; but that doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. All it will take is for the Arabs, Iranians, Central-Asians, North Africans, and others in the world to cast off the supremacist religious culture of the last millenium (or communist/tribalist for others), and to embrace prosperity and freedom as the way forward. If all countries were to eventually become democracies, this would be a path to world peace; which is what any sane or rational human being wants at the end of the day, and what all the demagogs, tyrants, and religious extremists will oppose and will divide us so they can gain their own power over others, and enslave us all. The only way democracy will spread is with military intervention, I know people will not like to hear that, but it is completely true when you look at all revolutions throughout human history; none of them have ever happened without the help (financial/military backing) of another powerful state; democracy or otherwise. India is sitting on the winning hand in terms of it being a democracy, and a growing world power looking to increase its prosperity. It fought a colonial power/tyrants in order to gain independence (British, Mughals, etc...), and is going through a middle stage of isolationism; just like the United States. I think by now you see where I am coming from, and why it is I am here on the defense forums. Democracy as a movement is a passion of mine, and I see Indians as brothers in a struggle for freedom and peace.
The choice is ultimately up to the Indians though to decide how they are going to make the next century be for them. Are they going to remain isolationist? Then throw away the idea of becoming a super power, because it will never happen. If you want to grow and have a mark on the world stage, the Indians will need to be interventionist, just like the US during the First and Second World Wars onwards. Since democracy is a shared form of government, India can play a role in spreading it across the world the same way America has in the past (mostly), and this will gain India large amounts of diplomatic concessions in the west, and will help India to forge alliances with them in the long run against aggressive dictatorships like the CCP. No matter how many bumps in relations the US has had with India in the past, they share similar long term goals; it would be foolish for India to simply remain neutral with them, or to side with everyone thinking it can remain neutral forever in a conflict between civilization (democracy) and totalitarianism. That will be counter to your cause in the long run. Many of you wont believe me, and for many of you who are skeptical due to the past; that is understandable, but if you care about the spread of peace as I've heard many Indians say, then for some of you; you will need to swallow your pride and realize accepting western help is not a sign of being subjugated, or becoming a lesser pawn of the US. Stop expecting the US to give you state of the art technology in order to maintain an alliance when you are still on good terms with Russia, Iran, and Vietnam; the first two states of which would not come to your aid if a serious war did break out, and the US would simply fear giving technology to India could find its way into the hands of the above, just like how Chinas and Pakistans weapons have found themselves in all sorts of interesting places, to say the least. Perhaps what I am saying is falling on deaf ear, I sincerely hope not. You have had attempts to improve relations already under Bush, and some attempts under Obama so far; so I know what I am saying is not false.
Consider wisely.
